I was looking at some of the offensive options like utilizing a "blocking TE" or "pass catching FB". These are awesome! Will the same be done for defense?

Wouldn't it be nice to utilize a run stopping def tackle or a pass rushing def end in differing situations (versus a more balanced player in all situations)? Same goes for linebackers. If we look at the attributes for Derrick Brooks versus Lawrence Taylor, they would be very different, yet both were the best at what they did. Being able to pick out those players and use them correctly would be an amazing addition! Having a hard hitting safety can be a game changer but if he gets put in coverage all the time, it doesn't take advantage of the "extra linebacker" on the field in the mold of Steve Atwater. Having a lockdown corner would be an amazing assett if he actually was allowed to lock someone down. Assigning a coverage linebacker or safety to a recieving TE would also be a great feature. Obviously there are hundreds of options. Are any of these being considered?

There are changes to defense and not quite to the level of the offense, and I think there are many things we can do with defense to get where we all want to be, but I wanted to get feedback on the defense and suggestions before I start going crazy with changes. There are a couple issues with adding the things I think we all want to defense - one is that there are already a ton of settings for defense and I want to be careful about adding even more settings, and the other is that we don't really set anything currently relating to a specific game or opponent, so things like specific player match ups would be something new.

For defensive formations, the players' roles are locked in to a certain extent. Players that will play at the line, rushing the passer or stopping the rusher, will be locked in as well as where they contribute to the line. Players that drop into cover will be locked in and certain slots will be designated as FS or SS. The players that are locked into cover have the option to blitz. So right now, the only option you have in setting up defensive formations is which depth chart to pull from and the player's blitz chance.

in the playbooks, you have the option to pick the formation set (basically depth chart and blitz packages), tendency for rush or pass defense, chance to blitz on the play, and a cover setting (short, medium, or long). There will be certain differences between what players do on defense based on all these settings and hopefully it's something I can plainly lay out in the help. For instance, the SS will be closer to the line based on the Cover setting as well as if you call for a rush or pass defense. I'd like to work in these types of combination settings where we don't have to specifically set what each player is doing to avoid additional settings, as long as it gives us all the options we would want.

I think of all the additions, the defensive settings are probably the most likely to change during beta given any feedback we get. Maybe there are some more options we can find with the defensive formations and maybe there are some more options we can find in the playbook. We might also work on adding game-specific settings so we can look at something like lock-down corners, especially if we can find some simple settings that accomplish what we want. I also am not sure I like the defensive role breakdown, and I think I'll probably get some feedback on player roles within each formation, but I'm kind of counting on it.

Testing all of these settings will be tough. That's why I hope allowing people to play test games will foster more testing. It might be that you have to build some extreme playbooks, like an all short cover, all rush defense playbook, and see if game results are what you would expect, and stuff like that. I will show whether it is pass defense or rush defense in the pbp and if there is a blitz and who is blitzing, so I might add the type of cover (short, medium, long) to that as well so you can tell what is going on in each play.

Well I already know as of right now gameplanning means nothing. I played in a 3rd round playoff game today with a pretty evenly match team that mostly runs the ball like myself. Just for ***** and giggles, let me state I havent gameplanned the whole season, I would gameplan for this game and go Always run Balance since I knew he was gonna run the ball in situations where he ran the ball. Didnt work to where I gave up 17 first half points, I then went back to the basice sim gameplan where I have my formations set and only gave up 3 points in situations where he went always run and I went pass balance. Tell me whats the deal with that? I go always run to crowd the line of scrimmage and he puts up 17 on me, I go pass defense and he runs the ball and only scores 3 points. Now I know I've been a total ***** to you norbert but I just hope you don't let us down because things like this needs to be fixed. When they are I will make a topic just for you with my apologies on everything I have ever said about you and about this game but I'm seriously speaking now, This game needs to be fixed ASAP. When an always run team does great agains an always run defense but doesnt do to well against a pass defense then something is totally wrong. Good Luck with this and I hope you get it working soon.

PS and no noone hacked my account and started this ****, This is coming from the heart of the game. So dont make me ginomail any of your *****!!!!

Coach Deen - for someone who talks about how the sarcasm and negativity are an annoyance, you really hit the ball out of the park with that one. What point were you trying to make?

Asking respectfully about the changes in store for defense is not unreasonable. As long as respect is maintained, asking questions and contributing should be welcome. Otherwise, why even have a forum? Maybe you don't care about defense, but other people do. If we can have multiple settings for offensive positions like fullbacks, rbs and TEs, it is not unreasonable to ask for the same allowances on defense. Other games allow for that, and the actual game of football is played that way. Good teams have rotating defensive lineman and good coaches use them according to their abilities. Pre set molds is pop warner.

As far as special teams go, once again, maybe you think it is just dandy the way it is. Others would like to see the return stats recorded, and perhaps have actual units where the backups on the team have some more utility and contribute more to wins and losses. Having the returner lineup against the kicker/punter alone with no blockers is not a very good simulation of reality. Having a returner return 5 kicks and 5 punts and get credit for playing 0% of the game is also problematic. I don't think it is unreasonable to inquire what changes, if any, are in store for special teams.

Thanks Norbert for the reply. Sounds good so far. I appreciate that you are open to suggestions concerning the defensive side of the game and it sounds like there will be some changes during Beta which is good!

Posted by kneeneighbor on 1/31/2013 10:09:00 AM (view original):I do not know if anyone has mentioned this but I think the time out usage at the end of the first half is something that needs to be worked on

It has been addressed ... at least how you manage the clock and the number of options you have to manage the clock.

If you look here (game plans), you will see that you can control the clock directly and there are 4 optional and 5 standard adjustments. You also have options for if you are inside your own (your pick) yard line or inside your opponents <your pick> yard line.

Posted by samson75 on 1/31/2013 8:37:00 AM (view original):Coach Deen - for someone who talks about how the sarcasm and negativity are an annoyance, you really hit the ball out of the park with that one. What point were you trying to make?

Asking respectfully about the changes in store for defense is not unreasonable. As long as respect is maintained, asking questions and contributing should be welcome. Otherwise, why even have a forum? Maybe you don't care about defense, but other people do. If we can have multiple settings for offensive positions like fullbacks, rbs and TEs, it is not unreasonable to ask for the same allowances on defense. Other games allow for that, and the actual game of football is played that way. Good teams have rotating defensive lineman and good coaches use them according to their abilities. Pre set molds is pop warner.

As far as special teams go, once again, maybe you think it is just dandy the way it is. Others would like to see the return stats recorded, and perhaps have actual units where the backups on the team have some more utility and contribute more to wins and losses. Having the returner lineup against the kicker/punter alone with no blockers is not a very good simulation of reality. Having a returner return 5 kicks and 5 punts and get credit for playing 0% of the game is also problematic. I don't think it is unreasonable to inquire what changes, if any, are in store for special teams.

??? samson75, either you misunderstood what I was trying to say or I didn't get my point across very well. I agree 100% that numerous changes need to be made on the defensive side as well as special teams. I also agree that return stats need to be recorded and backups should play a bigger role. I never said any different. Could you please let me know what I did say that led you to believe what you wrote. My guess is I didn't explain what ever it was very well or you wouldn't have said what you said, but the truth is I couldn't agree more with the changes you're looking for!

Posted by kneeneighbor on 1/31/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):Excellent. I had noticed some issues before but in the conference championship game today my opponent called a time out on 1st and 20 then 2 and 17 from his own 19 with 1:50 to go.

We will be working on end of half and end of game logic throughout beta in addition to any logic that I've already changed.

In the current engine, this shouldn't happen unless they are down by two scores. If they are down by one score and this happened, then it is something we need to look at, but we will be reviewing time out usage in either case. I also don't see how they would call a time out on a 1st and 20 since obviously there had to be a penalty on the previous play, or do you mean after they ran the 1st and 20 play?

Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions Coach Deen. If so, please accept my apologies. It seemed like you were ridiculing those looking for more options. Obviously you were not serious about those suggested changes in your post, so I am not sure what the intention was, but regardless, if it was not directed at those making suggestions, please disregard my criticism. Sometimes the intent is lost in writing, and this may be one of those cases. Once again, no harm no foul and I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Posted by kneeneighbor on 1/31/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):Excellent. I had noticed some issues before but in the conference championship game today my opponent called a time out on 1st and 20 then 2 and 17 from his own 19 with 1:50 to go.

We will be working on end of half and end of game logic throughout beta in addition to any logic that I've already changed.

In the current engine, this shouldn't happen unless they are down by two scores. If they are down by one score and this happened, then it is something we need to look at, but we will be reviewing time out usage in either case. I also don't see how they would call a time out on a 1st and 20 since obviously there had to be a penalty on the previous play, or do you mean after they ran the 1st and 20 play?

Needs some looking then because he was up 10-3 at the time...

Also they ran the ball on 1st and 10 but were called for a hold. They then used a time out before the 1 and 20 play.
1st and 20 Ran for 3 yards time out.
2nd and 17 ran for 3 yards time out.
3rd and 14 pass for 4 yards and then I call a time out.